What regular things from today will seem insane in 100years?

[Upgrayedd]

Are you calling Army of God ridiculous? 'Cause he was the one who assumed it.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Are you calling Army of God ridiculous? 'Cause he was the one who assumed it.

I'm not calling anyone ridiculous, I'm just saying that asking questions such as "But if we all become immortal robots, how are we going to have enough coal?" is ridiculous.

Anyway, back on topic.
It'll be considered insane that we were able to live without constant thought controled access to the internet, and that we had to painstakingly memorize random facts about the world rather than just being able to look them up at will.

[Phatscotty]

Spending more money than one has to spend

[natty dread]

Spending more money than one has to spend

In a hundred years, it'll be considered insane that phatscotty could turn any thread into a platform for his political agendas.

[Phatscotty]

Spending more money than one has to spend

In a hundred years, it'll be considered insane that phatscotty could turn any thread into a platform for his political agendas.

try common sense.

[Upgrayedd]

Common sense dictates that spending more money than you have without repercussion is a good thing.

[Lootifer]

A lot of the things that were considered normal a couple centuries ago are now viewed as barbaric and pretty much batshit insane.

It seems reasonable to believe the same will happen to us.
So what things do you think will suffer this fate?

I'll get the ball rolling:

Regularly driving cars at high speeds without computer guided correction, thus ensuring that you are constantly one hand motion away from fiery death. The fact that it was normal for thousands of people to die exactly in that manner every year.

Good things:
- Orthopedics; I forsee that field of medicine changing radically in the future.
- People overeating/eating junk food. Obesity is going to start costing us; I predict a fairly strong cultural shift
- Energy intensity; we are going to start running into peak constraints on our electricity and other energy networks; expect energy consumption to become much more energy efficient

Bad things:
- Contact sports will keep getting toned down until there are no genuine contact sports left

[patels shop]

the olympics will seem insane in 100 years. people won't believe we spent all that time watching sports when it could be better suited watching outrageous ceremony shows and mcdonalds/visa/other olympic sponsor commercials

the first olympics took place about 2800 years ago. i imagine they'll be going for some time yet.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

You guys are clueless. Maximizing cellular respiration and metabolism would INCREASE the amount of energy needed. Unless you think you bend the laws of thermodynamics

And anyway, you completely missed the point (as always).

It's not about food running out, but rather about increased environmental damage and dwindling non-renewable resources. Space exploitation is further away than longevity enhancements, so it's no solution, and in fact it may never happen (it's quite possibly just as absurd as the "flying car" nonsense).

Derp someone hasn't any clue about the rules of advancing technology. Every technology we've invented has become more efficient as innovations are made. Cars 40 years ago got shitty mileage; now they get less shitty mileage.

What is food but a means to break down chemical bonds in the production of ATP and the acquisition of minerals and vitamins? The only reason we can't subsist wholly on simple sugars is because of nutritional needs and long-term effects of a poor diet; if means are devised to increase organic efficiency, then the complex dietary needs of modern organisms will become simpler.

That's not even mentioning the benefits of non-organic bodies.

-TG

[GreecePwns]

Energy that doesn't come from renewable sources. (Partially an affirmation of Haggis' post)

[Lootifer]

Energy that doesn't come from renewable sources. (Partially an affirmation of Haggis' post)

Eh I wouldnt go quite that far. There are still massive stockpiles of non-renewable energy (Fossil fuels and Nuclear, the latter being extremely abundent).

But the proportions will be VERY different than now, for sure.

[Upgrayedd]

You guys are clueless. Maximizing cellular respiration and metabolism would INCREASE the amount of energy needed. Unless you think you bend the laws of thermodynamics

And anyway, you completely missed the point (as always).

It's not about food running out, but rather about increased environmental damage and dwindling non-renewable resources. Space exploitation is further away than longevity enhancements, so it's no solution, and in fact it may never happen (it's quite possibly just as absurd as the "flying car" nonsense).

Derp someone hasn't any clue about the rules of advancing technology. Every technology we've invented has become more efficient as innovations are made. Cars 40 years ago got shitty mileage; now they get less shitty mileage.

What is food but a means to break down chemical bonds in the production of ATP and the acquisition of minerals and vitamins? The only reason we can't subsist wholly on simple sugars is because of nutritional needs and long-term effects of a poor diet; if means are devised to increase organic efficiency, then the complex dietary needs of modern organisms will become simpler.

That's not even mentioning the benefits of non-organic bodies.

-TG

There are rules that require technology to become more efficient with time Did Jesus tell you that?

And you're talking about turning people into bacteria, btw.

(ps non-organic bodies have no benefit over organic bodies)

[PLAYER57832]

Energy that doesn't come from renewable sources. (Partially an affirmation of Haggis' post)

I wish this were true.

Sadly, I think we will keep on with our current system benefitting those who are already in power, based on exploitation of the resources we have.

In 100 years, I fear we will have used up a lot of our resources, realized how difficult it is to clean up the messes.. and be beholden to China as one of the few countries that will have built itself up to the point to keep power. Of course, that means we will have to have only one child (maybe less... since its only fair that we make recompense for our abuses of the past, after all).


I HOPE that in 100 years, we will have a more sustainable economy.. requirements to truly test new chemicals before they are produced, acceptance that minerals and water within the Earth and upon it are not "owned" by individuals, that individuals only own what they work to achieve. I don't think we need to do away with the idea of benefitting from investment, but the benefit from just plopping down money should not be equal, never mind surpass by many magnitudes, the benefit gained from actually working to create and produce.

[Upgrayedd]

Energy that doesn't come from renewable sources. (Partially an affirmation of Haggis' post)

I wish this were true.

Sadly, I think we will keep on with our current system benefitting those who are already in power, based on exploitation of the resources we have.

In 100 years, I fear we will have used up a lot of our resources, realized how difficult it is to clean up the messes.. and be beholden to China as one of the few countries that will have built itself up to the point to keep power. Of course, that means we will have to have only one child (maybe less... since its only fair that we make recompense for our abuses of the past, after all).


I HOPE that in 100 years, we will have a more sustainable economy.. requirements to truly test new chemicals before they are produced, acceptance that minerals and water within the Earth and upon it are not "owned" by individuals, that individuals only own what they work to achieve. I don't think we need to do away with the idea of benefitting from investment, but the benefit from just plopping down money should not be equal, never mind surpass by many magnitudes, the benefit gained from actually working to create and produce.

I take it this is coming from someone living in a comfy suburban home who's never been exposed to hunger, poverty, disease or nature.

About limiting birth limit... lol, birth rates are already unsustainably low in the first world. Even in most of the rest of the world birth rates have slowed down. Some of the lowest birth rates in the world are in East Asia, a region previously known for it's recent population boom. Off the top of my head the only countries with exceptionally high growth rates are the DPRC and Afghanistan, both war torn regions, one with rape endemic and other with ultra conservative patriarchy in charge... easy to see why growth is high there.

[PLAYER57832]

Energy that doesn't come from renewable sources. (Partially an affirmation of Haggis' post)

I wish this were true.

Sadly, I think we will keep on with our current system benefitting those who are already in power, based on exploitation of the resources we have.

In 100 years, I fear we will have used up a lot of our resources, realized how difficult it is to clean up the messes.. and be beholden to China as one of the few countries that will have built itself up to the point to keep power. Of course, that means we will have to have only one child (maybe less... since its only fair that we make recompense for our abuses of the past, after all).


I HOPE that in 100 years, we will have a more sustainable economy.. requirements to truly test new chemicals before they are produced, acceptance that minerals and water within the Earth and upon it are not "owned" by individuals, that individuals only own what they work to achieve. I don't think we need to do away with the idea of benefitting from investment, but the benefit from just plopping down money should not be equal, never mind surpass by many magnitudes, the benefit gained from actually working to create and produce.

I take it this is coming from someone living in a comfy suburban home who's never been exposed to hunger, poverty, disease or nature.

You obviously have not read much of what I have written here, if you think that. I admit I have not been truly hungry... I grew up on farms and during effective peacetime (peace where I lived, at any rate).

[InkL0sed]

There's also the fact that if we became immortal we'd be far less likely to have children. It's already pretty much a law of demography that countries' population growth slows and pretty much stops as they become industrialized (pretty much because of contraception). That's why the UN projects global population to become more or less steady at 10 billion.

[Upgrayedd]

There's also the fact that if we became immortal we'd be far less likely to have children. It's already pretty much a law of demography that countries' population growth slows and pretty much stops as they become industrialized (pretty much because of contraception). That's why the UN projects global population to become more or less steady at 10 billion.

Growth declines due to a variety of factors, not just contraception. Economic, social and cultural factors all play a role.